from the they-said dept

Techdirt has written a number of times about growing evidence that good, reasonably-priced streaming services are reducing dramatically the number of illegal downloads in the regions where they are available. One of the countries where that was observed some years ago is Norway. Now, a new report in Music Business Worldwide indicates that things are looking even better for the recorded music business there:

A countrywide survey in December 2014 showed that just 4% of Norwegians under 30 years still used illegal file-sharing platforms to get hold of music.

Even better for the worldwide industry, less than 1% of people under 30 years said that file-sharing was their main source of obtaining music.

The head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) in Norway, Marte Thorsby, explains why she thinks that has happened:

"We are now offering services that are both better and more user-friendly than illegal platforms… In [the past] five years, we have virtually eliminated illegal file-sharing in the music industry."

There we have it from the recording industry itself: offer "better and more user-friendly" products and illegal file-sharing just goes away on its own -- no intrusive surveillance, punitive three-strikes or clumsy site blocking required. How much clearer does it have to be?

from the incredible dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about how the IFPI (sort of the international RIAA) had bizarrely issued a DMCA takedown on Kim Dotcom's own album off of his own website, Mega. Obviously, the IFPI holds no copyright on Dotcom's album, and the takedown was obviously false. We noted that, while some might believe that this was a deliberate move by the IFPI in its anti-Kim Dotcom crusade, that seemed unlikely. It seemed like pure sloppiness. However, a recent post at TorrentFreak reveals more details about why and how the IFPI sent such a takedown -- and why it happened again just weeks later.

The simple explanation? The IFPI is not even remotely careful in how it builds its list for takedowns. It's scraping links from Pastebin and assuming they're what people say they are, even if they're totally unrelated. Yes, some pranksters have basically been posting links to Dotcom's music on Pastebin, pretending that they're some other songs, and the IFPI is sending takedowns based on that alone.

Eventually we stumbled upon a series of Pastebin pages where the URL of Dotcom’s album is linked to titles of other artists. Several of the artists mentioned in the pastes are the same as the one’s IFPI listed in their DMCA notices, so this would explain the mistakes.

Good investigative work by TorrentFreak. Horrible investigative work by the IFPI. Especially given the seriousness of demanding content be taken offline entirely based on bogus copyright claims.

But this is even more troubling in that it basically means any prankster can probably get the IFPI to start removing... just about anything. If there were real punishments for sending bogus DMCA takedowns, this sort of practice would stop, but since there isn't, the IFPI can just keep doing this, and pranksters can "guide" the IFPI into taking down plenty of legitimate content. It's yet another example of copyright as censorship, rather than having anything to do with legitimate copyright purposes.

from the due-process-means-something dept

For years now, the entertainment industry's dream is that it should be able to point to certain websites and say "bad website" and have the rest of the world make that website disappear. The fact that the industry has a dreadful history of falsely accusing perfectly legitimate sites as infringing, leading to bogus takedowns that are destroying perfectly legitimate businesses, either by shutting them down without any evidence, or involving them in extended legal battles, apparently never enters the equation. The entertainment industry still insists that when it points to a site and says "bad" that the site should immediately be forced to disappear.

Furthermore, the industry seems to believe that everyone else has a legal responsibility to carry out its wishes once it declares a site as bad. It thinks hosts should take down sites, search engines should stop linking to them, advertisers should block ads, registrars should pull domain names and ISPs should block access. You'd think that maybe actually adapting to new technologies and giving people more of what they want might be a more compelling strategy, but the legacy entertainment industry prefers demanding that everyone else go out of their way to protect the legacy industry's obsolete business model, without the industry itself doing anything more than pointing at sites (often incorrectly).

The latest battle ground for this appears to be in Austria, where an "anti-piracy" group representing the movie industry, VAP, has sued four local ISPs (UPC, Drei, Tele2 and A1) for failing to block access to two sites based entirely on VAP's say so. That is, there is no court case or court order saying that the ISPs need to block Movie4K.to and Kinox.to. It's entirely VAP saying so (it also asked for the ISPs to block The Pirate Bay, but for some reason left that one out of the eventual lawsuit). When the ISPs quite reasonably said, "Uh, where's the court order?" rather than go to court against the sites in question, VAP sued the ISPs. That seems tremendously questionable.

Either way, it appears that IFPI is jumping in on the action too. You may recall just a few weeks ago the head of the IFPI in Austria, Franz Medwenitsch, foreshadowed this move by claiming that it's not censorship to block sites that he, personally, doesn't like. It's only censorship when you block sites he likes, you see? And he doesn't like The Pirate Bay. So, he's going to sue ISPs to block it and other sites as well.

The idea that entire websites should be completely inaccessible based entirely on the say so of a particular industry (with a very long history of attacking any new innovation) seems immensely worrisome if you believe in an open internet or basic principles of innovation. Giving the legacy film or music industry a "veto" on innovation merely by declaring a site "rogue" is a very dangerous idea. The ISPs are right to stand up and demand more than just those industry groups' say so, and hopefully courts will agree.

from the just-another-accident dept

We've heard some folks claim that all these bogus takedown notices we write about are just "anomalies" rather than a pattern of abuse of the law for the purpose of censorship. And yet, there are more and more examples every day. The latest one is particularly bizarre. IFPI (the international version of the RIAA) has apparently been issuing a series of bogus takedown notices to get Kim Dotcom's album "Good Times" taken down off of his own site, Mega. That's... quite incredible. This does not appear to be a strange attempt to hide Dotcom's music, but it looks to just be pure sloppiness on the part of the IFPI issuing misguided takedowns. That is, the IFPI takedown notice lists a totally different song (and it turns out this is the second time this has happened to Dotcom's album in the past month). As short-sighted as the IFPI is, it would take an other wordly level of stupidity to directly target Dotcom's music with a bogus takedown. Even the IFPI must know that that would backfire badly. The story that it's an "accident" makes much more sense.

Dotcom filed a counternotice and the album was back up after about a day of being down. However, the real issue here is just how common this sort of thing is. And it comes from the same folks who like to (1) insist that it's "easy" to tell infringing works from non-infringing works and (2) demand that entire sites be blocked based just on their say-so that those sites are "illegal." Of course, Dotcom has some experience on that front, seeing as his own website, Megaupload, was shut down nearly three years ago, despite no adversarial hearing in a court of law on whether or not it was legal.

from the oh-really? dept

We see this kind of claim every so often, but usually not from a high-ranking legacy entertainment industry executive. However, TorrentFreak has the story of how the CEO of IFPI in Austria (IFPI is basically the international RIAA), Franz Medwenitsch, claiming that blocking websites like the Pirate Bay isn't censorship, because how can it be censorship to block stuff that he doesn't like?

“Censorship is the suppression of free speech and everyone who lives in a democratic society categorically rejects censorship,” the IFPI chief says.

“But what has freedom of expression got to do with generating advertising revenues by illegally offering tens of thousands of movies and music recordings on the Internet with disregard for creators and artists? And yet the freedom of the author to determine the use of their works themselves is trampled!”

Except, of course, that's not all that the Pirate Bay and other sites do. They offer plenty of legitimate content as well -- public domain material, works that creators want to be distributed in that way, etc. Furthermore, it's not these sites that are doing the distribution. They're effectively acting as a meeting place or a search engine to match different users who are offering up the content, authorized or not.

But there's this fundamental disconnect here which is scary to people who actually believe in free speech. Medwenitsch appears to have the dangerous belief that free speech only covers the kind of speech he likes. That's not free speech. It's really not that hard to see how someone could take Medwenitsch's half-baked argument and flip it around:

"But what has freedom of expression got to do with generating recorded music revenues by illegally promoting misogynistic music on the internet with disregard to the feelings of women? And yet the freedom of those women to be free from insults and offensiveness is trampled!"

I'm sure you can come up with your own variation as well. The second that you start to insist that certain kinds of speech are somehow "not worthy" of free speech, because you, personally, don't like them, you're opening up the door to widespread censorship and you don't believe in free speech at all. Medwenitsch highlights this problem perfectly. By his words he is pro-censorship and yet he believes he's anti-censorship.

As we've said in the past, it is perfectly legitimate to have the opinion that sites like the Pirate Bay should be illegal and blocked. We may think you're wrong, but you can have that opinion. But it's simply being dishonest to argue that taking down the site is not censorship. It is. It's just censorship you approve of.

from the how-is-that-legal? dept

We've highlighted a number of stories recently about the City of London Police, who have partnered with a few legacy players from the entertainment industry, and are using a bunch of taxpayer money to try to shut down websites the copyright industry doesn't like -- based on no clear legal reasoning or authority. They often seem to just rely on their name and bogus threats to get registrars to kill sites -- a process that has been found to violate ICANN policies for registrars. However, most registrars just give in, because the City of London Police just look so damn official.

Over the weekend TorrentFreak noted that a few more sites have been shuttered based on no court order, no judicial findings, but just the City of London Police's say so. This includes FileCrop, a site that hosted no infringing files at all, but which is just a search engine. Once again, the police make no effort whatsoever to hide the fact that they're doing the bidding of the legacy entertainment industry -- directly linking to their favored sites and flat out saying that they're supported by BPI, IFPI, FACT and the Publishers Association.

Whether or not the sites that are being taken down are, in fact, violating the law, everything about this process is highly questionable. Taking down websites without a court order is a blatant attack on free speech. And, yes, while the UK does not have the same free speech traditions as the US, it does still hold itself out as being a believer in free speech. It is difficult to see the shuttering of a website without any due process as little more than blatant censorship.

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that this censorship is proudly done to support legacy industries who see the internet as something to be shunned and attacked. How would people respond if the City of London Police suddenly, with no court order, shut down BSkyB and proudly announced it was doing so with the support of the BBC? Or shut down AirBnB and announced it was doing so with the support of the British Hospitality industry? Or shut down EasyJet and did so with the support of British Air? Wouldn't people be outraged?

from the those-darn-international-obligations dept

For many years, we've highlighted how copyright maximalists have abused the international trade process to expand copyright monopolies around the globe. If you're interested in the history there, I highly recommend the book Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?, which details much of the history. Defenders of this policy love to pretend that international trade agreements can't bind US law, but reality is quite different. Time and time again, we've seen maximalists use international agreements to get their way either in ratcheting up copyright law even further, or pressuring courts into certain positions. This is one of the reasons (one of many) that we're so concerned about new agreements like the TPP and TTIP/TAFTA. Even if the USTR claims (incorrectly) that nothing in them goes beyond US law today, they can not only limit the changes Congress can make to copyright and patent law, but these issues can show up in court cases, potentially hindering innovation.

Here's a perfect example. We've been covering the Aereo case for quite some time, and as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case in April, a bunch of international music organizations, led by the IFPI (basically the international version of the RIAA), have filed an amicus brief that pretty clearly says that the Supreme Court has to rule against Aereo because of existing international trade agreements that the US has signed. No joke. The brief directly claims that the appeals court ruling that found in favor of Aereo "places the United States in violation of its multilateral treaty commitments," as well as "its bilateral and regional agreements," and further that the Supreme Court has a duty to find against Aereo in order to respect the US's "treaty commitments."

Reading through the brief, you can see just how much copyright maximalists have succeeded in putting together a huge mess of international agreements (often built around issues totally unrelated to copyright, with a few copyright specific ones thrown in) that these groups can now claim require the Supreme Court to outlaw new innovations like Aereo. It further cites rulings in the EU and Canada that it suggests require the Supreme Court to follow suit. While there are some Justices who have made it clear time and time again that they don't care what foreign courts say, others have shown a willingness to follow suit.

Either way, this brief yet again highlights just how nefarious these international trade agreements can be, and how they can come back to bite new innovations years later. Defenders of copyright maximalism will insist that things like TPP and TTIP/TAFTA will have no impact on US law, but if those agreements come into force, you can bet that future US innovations will get stomped out of existence with certain players pointing to those agreements as a reason they need to be shut down.

from the let's-walk-this-through dept

A few folks have sent over variations on two different reports concerning the music industry, with some suggesting that this is "proof" that the recording industry's "war on piracy" has been effective on two fronts: increasing sales and reducing piracy. Of course, for many years, we've questioned whether or not reducing piracy actually increases sales, so we looked closely at the numbers and they don't seem to say what some people think they're saying. The Hollywood Reporter has a good summary of both reports. One comes from IFPI, celebrating that "global recorded music revenue" rose 0.3% in 2012. That is, obviously, a tiny increase, but it is an increase. Of course, as we've noted, "recorded" music revenue is merely one piece of the wider music industry ecosystem -- and that entire ecosystem has been growing for quite some time.

The second report comes from one of the industry's favorite researchers, NPD, claiming a massive decline in music file sharing (based on consumer surveys). I've found NPD's data to be suspect in the past, but let's just assume this is true. Then, can we reach the conclusion that the industry's anti-piracy efforts both worked and that it led to increased sales?

Actually... no. Not even close. We can see this pretty clearly just by looking beyond the recorded music market, to the wider file sharing space. Various reports have made it clear that widespread file sharing (mostly of infringing content) has continued to grow quite rapidly during the same time period. Sandvine reports (pdf) that BitTorrent traffic increased 40% over the same basic time frame. Or, zero in on a different market beyond music. How about software? The BSA's annual report continues to show increases in "piracy."

What does that say? Well, if wider anti-piracy campaigns were effective, we wouldn't just be seeing a decline in music infringement. We'd see similar declines across the board. But the overall space and some other, similar, markets are showing increases in infringing content spreading.

That leads us to the much more reasonable hypothesis: the reason that music piracy is down and revenue is up is because the industry has finally started allowing more innovation into the market. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what we've been arguing for years. If you let the tech industry create useful new services that better provide the public with what they want, you get services and products that people are willing to pay for. And when that happens, infringement decreases, because the legitimate and authorized services are better than infringing. It's why music infringement fell off a cliff in Sweden when Spotify launched there, despite also being the home of The Pirate Bay. Notably, when music infringement plummeted in Sweden, other types of infringement did not similarly drop.

In other words, for all the complaints about these new services, and the many, many attempts to hold them back or neuter them, letting new services grow and thrive seems to be the best "anti-piracy" measure that the record labels could have used. And yet it still thinks it needs to focus on punishing fans and limiting services.

Some of these are by smaller players, whom you might expect to be confused, but there are some big guys as well. In the screenshot above you can see both BPI and the IFPI (on behalf of Sony Music). There are also DMCA requests from Universal Music, EMI, the Publishers Association and others. All for content that clearly doesn't exist and hasn't existed in months. Kinda makes you wonder if they even check this stuff. Considering that all of these copyright holders seem to think that Google and others can just magically "know" when there's infringing content around, it's pretty telling that even they don't seem to know how to tell if content exists, let alone if it's infringing.

from the system-failure dept

We've pointed out over and over again that the revolving door between the government and the big copyright maximalists represents a broken system -- and we're seeing it yet again. David Carson, the long time General Counsel of the US Copyright Office has announced that he's leaving that job... to become head of global legal policy for the IFPI (the international version of the RIAA). His role will be to "coordinate the recorded music industry's legal policy strategy worldwide." Think he'll have undue influence with the US Copyright Office? He's only been in General Counsel of the US Copyright Office for 15 years. Of course, the IP-Watch story linked above shows how the revolving door works both ways. In effect, Carson is replacing Shira Perlmutter, who left the IFPI role earlier this year... to become the chief policy advisor on IP issues for the US Patent and Trademark Office.